<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (3) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74575</link>
    <description>Platinum/rhodium gauges used only as a catalyst in nitric acid manufacture were not treated as raw material or component parts under Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because a catalyst facilitates the reaction but does not become part of the finished product. The claim for movement under the special procedure therefore failed. The same goods also did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., because that relief was confined to goods manufactured in the assessee&#039;s factory for use there or in another factory of the same manufacturer, and the secondary manufacturer&#039;s premises could not be treated as the assessee&#039;s factory. The exemption was construed strictly, so the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:39:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74575</link>
      <description>Platinum/rhodium gauges used only as a catalyst in nitric acid manufacture were not treated as raw material or component parts under Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because a catalyst facilitates the reaction but does not become part of the finished product. The claim for movement under the special procedure therefore failed. The same goods also did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., because that relief was confined to goods manufactured in the assessee&#039;s factory for use there or in another factory of the same manufacturer, and the secondary manufacturer&#039;s premises could not be treated as the assessee&#039;s factory. The exemption was construed strictly, so the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>